Hotel Vani vs Arvind Singh Ias
2022 Latest Caselaw 2558 Ker

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
           Friday, the 4th day of March 2022 / 13th Phalguna, 1943
           CONTEMPT CASE(C) NO. 265 OF 2022(S) IN WP(C) 1175/2021
   PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN WP(C)

          HOTEL VANI, CHANGANACHERRY (PO), PIN 686 101,

          REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SMT. TESSY ALLEN,

          AGED 54 YEARS, W/O LATE ALLEN.T.MATHEW, RESIDING AT

          VANIYAPURACKAL HOUSE, MATTOM, CHANGANACHERRY P.O.,

          CHANGANACHERRY-686 101, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

      BY ADV M.G.KARTHIKEYAN

   RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN WP(C)


     1. ARVIND SINGH IAS , MEMBER SECRETARY, THE HOTEL & RESTAURANTS
        APPROVAL AND CLASSIFICATION COMMITTEE (HRACC), MINISTRY OF
        TOURISM, C1-HUTMENTS, DALHOUSIE ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 011.
     2. MOHAMMED FAROKE, REGIONAL DIRECTOR & CONVENER, THE HOTEL &
        RESTAURANTS APPROVAL AND CLASSIFICATION COMMITTEE (HRACC)
        (SOUTH), SOUTHERN REGIONAL OFFICE, 154, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI-600
        002.




         BY SRI.SRIHARI RAO,CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL



     This Contempt of court case (civil) having come up for orders on
04.03.2022, the court on the same day passed the following:

                                                       P.T.O.
                      RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.
                     ----------------------------------
                   Cont. Case (C) No.265 of 2022
                 ------------------------------------------
                Dated this the 4th day of March, 2022



                                  ORDER

This Contempt Case is filed alleging that the directions issued by this

Court in judgment dated 03.2.2021 in W.P.(C) No.1175 of 2021 have not been

complied with to date.

2. While disposing of the writ petition, this Court had directed the

respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate action for conducting the inspection and

to finalize the proceedings for classification of the petitioner hotel within a period

of two months from 03.02.2021.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in

terms of the directions issued, an inspection was carried out in the month of

November, 2021, however, no orders have been passed to date.

4. Having considered the submissions, I find no justification on the part

of the respondents in failing to comply with the directions issued by this Court.

It is ordered that if the directions issued by this Court is not complied

with, within a period of two weeks from today, the respondents shall appear in

person before this Court to show cause why they shall not be proceeded against

for flouting the directions.

Post on 18.3.2022.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE

NS

04-03-2022 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar